The Learner and the Learning Process: Research and Practice in Technology-Enhanced Learning

  • Kwok-Wing LaiEmail author
Reference work entry
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE)


This overview chapter surveys the most significant developments of technology-enhanced learning (TEL) in primary and secondary education in the last 10 years to highlight some significant learning issues and challenges related to technology use in the twenty-first century, and also their implications to the learner and how these changes affect the learning process. New developments such as advances in neuroscience research, innovative pedagogical practices such as flipped learning, one-to-one computing, and online learning are discussed. While in the last 10 years there has been increasing focus on the learner rather than on the technology, mainstream research is still looking for technological impacts or effects on learning outcomes, and many adopt a rather deterministic view on the use of digital technologies in education. It is also noted that how innovative technology-supported learning environments can be scaled up and sustained is a major issue. Also, more attention needed be put on the psychological and emotional effects of TEL, as well as health and safety issues of digital technology use on the young learners.


Technology-enhanced learning Learning process and characteristics ICT in education 


  1. Aberta Education. (2012). Bring your own device: A guide for schools. Retrieved from
  2. Amiel, T., & Reeves, T. C. (2008). Design-based research and educational technology: Rethinking technology and the research agenda. Educational Technology & Society, 11(4), 29–40.Google Scholar
  3. Atkeson, S. (2014). Harvard-MIT partnership unveils new MOOCs for K-12. Education Week, 8.Google Scholar
  4. Bebell, D. & Kay, R. (2010). One to one computing: A summary of the quantitative results from the Berkshire Wireless Learning Initiative, Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(2). Retrieved from
  5. Bullen, M., Morgan, T., & Qayyum, A. (2011). Digital learners in higher education: Generation is not the issue. Canadian Journal of Learning & Technology, 37, 1.Google Scholar
  6. Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53, 445–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark, D., Tanner-Smith, E., & Killingsworth, S. (2016). Digital games, design, and learning: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 79–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crook, C. (2012). The ‘digital native’ in context: Tensions associated with importing web 2.0 practices into the school setting. Oxford Review of Education, 3(1), 63–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  10. Erstad, O. (2009). Addressing the complexity of impact – A multilevel approach towards ICT in education. In F. Scheuermann & F. Pedró (Eds.), Assessing the effects of ICT in education (pp. 21–40). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  11. Flipped Learning Network (FLN). (2014). The four pillars of F-L-I-P. Retrieved from
  12. Fuchs, T., & Woessmann, L. (2004). Computers and student learning: Bivariate and multivariate evidence on the availability and use of computers at home and at school. CESifo working paper series no. 1321. Retrieved from
  13. Gao, F., Luo, T., & Zhang, K. (2012). Tweeting for learning: A critical analysis of research on microblogging in education published in 2008–2011. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(5), 783–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Howard-Jones, P. (2014). Neuroscience and education: A review of educational interventions and approaches informed by neuroscience. Millibank: The Education Endowment Foundation.Google Scholar
  17. Howard-Jones, P., Ott, M., Leeuwen, T., & De Smedt, B. (2015). The potential relevance of cognitive neuroscience for the development and use of technology-enhanced learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 40(2), 131–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Khaddage, F., Christensen, R., Lai, K. W., Knezek, G., Norris, C., & Soloway, E. (2015). A model driven framework to address challenges in a mobile learning environment. Education and Information Technologies, 20(4), 625–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kozma, R. B. (2008). Comparative analysis of policies for ICT in education. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 1083–1096). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kroeger, L., Brown, R., & O’Brien, B. (2012). Connecting neuroscience, cognitive, and educational theories and research to practice: A review of mathematics intervention programs. Early Education and Development, 23, 37–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lai, K. W. (2008). ICT supporting the learning process: The premise, reality, and promise. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 215–230). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lai, K. W., & Hong, K. S. (2014). Technology use and learning characteristics of students in higher education: Do generational differences exist? British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(4), 725–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lawless, K. (2016). Educational technology: False profit or sacrificial lamb? A review of policy, research, and practice. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(2), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lee, J., Lin, L., & Roberton, T. (2012). The impact of media multitasking on learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 37(1), 94–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lenhart, A. (2015). Teens, social media & technology overview 2015. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from
  27. Lenhart, A., Kahne, J., Middaugh, E., Macgill, A. R., Evans, C., & Vitak, J. (2008). Teens, video games, and civics. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from
  28. Livingstone, S. (2012). Critical reflections on the benefits of ICT in education. Oxford Review of Education, 38(1), 9–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., & Gorzig, A. (2012). Children, risk and safety on the internet: Research and policy challenges in comparative perspective. Chicago: Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Maddux, C. D. (2003). Twenty years of research in information technology in education: Assessing our progress. In D. L. Johnson & C. D. Maddux (Eds.), Technology in education a twenty-year retrospective (pp. 35–48). New York: The Hawthorne Press.Google Scholar
  31. Nagel, D. (2014). One-third of U.S. students use school-issued mobile devices. THE Journal. Retrieved from
  32. Navarro, R., Yubero, S., & Larranaga, E. (2016). Cyberbullying across the globe: Gender, family, and mental health. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. OECD. (2015). Students, computers and learning: Making the connection. Retrieved from
  34. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  35. Partnership for 21st Century Learning. (2007). Framework for 21st century learning. Retrieved from
  36. Passey, D., Rogers, C., Machell, J., McHugh, G., & Allaway, D. (2014). The motivational effect of ICT on pupils. London: Department for Education.Google Scholar
  37. Pawson, R., Greenhalgh, T., Harvey, G., & Walshe, K. (2005). Realist review: A new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 1, 21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pellegrino, J. W., & Hilton, M. (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Research Academy.Google Scholar
  39. Philip, T., & Garcia, A. (2013). The importance of still teaching the iGeneration: New technologies and the centrality of pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 83(2), 300–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Prensky, M. (2001). Immigrants part 2: Do they really think differently? On the Horizon, 9(6), 2–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Prensky, M. (2009). H. Sapiens digital: From digital immigrants and digital natives to digital wisdom. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 5(1). Retrieved from
  42. Project Tomorrow. (2015). Project tomorrow and the flipped learning network speak up 2014 national data. Retrieved from
  43. Rosen, L. D. (2010). Rewired: Understanding the iGeneration and the way they learn. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  44. Salomon, G. (2002). Technology and pedagogy: Why don’t we see the promised revolution? Educational Technology, 42(1), 71–75.Google Scholar
  45. Scardamalia, M. (2001). Big change questions. Will educational institutions, within their present structures, be able to adapt sufficiently to meet the needs of the information age? Journal of Educational Change, 2(2), 171–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Selwyn, N. (2011). Education and technology: Key issues and debates. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  47. So, H.-J., Seow, P., & Looi, C.-K. (2009). Location matters: Leveraging knowledge building with mobile devices and web 2.0 technology. Interactive Learning Environments, 17(4), 367–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Spitzer, M. (2014). Information technology in education: Risks and side effects. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 3, 81–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. The New South Wales Department of Education and Training. (2009). One-to-one computing: Literature review. Retrieved from
  50. U.K. Department for Education. (2014). MOOCs: Opportunities for their use in compulsory-age education. Retrieved from:
  51. UNESCO. (2012). Working paper series on mobile learning: Turning on mobile learning in North America. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  52. Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of Research in Education, 34, 179–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wellington, J. (2004). Has ICT come of age? Recurring debates on the role of ICT in education, 1982–2004. Research in Science and Technological Education, 23(1), 25–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wicks, M. (2010). A national primer on K-12 online learning. Vienna: International Association for K-12 Online Learning.Google Scholar
  55. Young, M., Slota, S., Cutter, A., Jalette, G., Mullin, G., Lai, B., Simeoni, Z., Tran, M., & Yukhymenko, M. (2012). Our princess is in another castle: A review of trends in serious gaming for education. Review of Educational Research, 82(1), 61–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Otago College of EducationDunedinNew Zealand

Section editors and affiliations

  • Kwok-Wing Lai
    • 1
  • Keryn Pratt
    • 2
  1. 1.University of Otago College of EducationDunedinNew Zealand
  2. 2.University of Otago College of EducationNorth DunedinNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations